Letters to the Editor
-
Religion and politics
What Obama and others seem to be up to is driving a wedge between right-wingers who turn to religion for political purposes and the religious who turn to politics to express deep moral concerns. I've always felt the most vocal 'Christaian conservatives' were conservatives first (homophobic, misogynistic, greedy etc.) and Christian second, and Christian only as a political power-play (cf the Kuo story). That group is highly influential regarding broad Christian voting patterns, despite the fact that they are a tiny minority of Christians in the US. Too many American Christians have bought into a myth that to be a good Christian they must vote republican. However, if progressives like Obama can cut those politically-driven Christian conservatives away from the general community of evangelicals who by-and-large care more about fighting greed, poverty, and pollution than gay marriage, there could be a sea-change in voting patterns.
-
Why evangelicals are more concerned about AIDS in Africa than America
First, the impact has been much more devastating in Africa. It's been devastating here too, but not to the same degree.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, AIDS in Africa is largely heterosexually transmitted in Africa. I'm sure they figure that any gays who get AIDS deserve it because they see them as sinners.
-
I have a question
There is a lot of propaganda about the transmission of AIDs. Much is made of so-called "heterosexual" transmission, making AIDs an equal opportunity disease transmitted to and from both sexes more or less equally. However, I am a simple-minded materials scientist, and I like to understand the mechanism of how things work. It appears to me that the main mode of transmission is anal sex in which only the male has the equipment for that task. It also appears to me that anal sex, both homosexual and "heterosexual" is common in Africa, but exists in othr countries, especially in certain sub-groups. I have reachd the tentative conclusion that men are giving AIDs to women and other men, but that it is very uncommon for women to give AIDs to men. If my conclusion is correct the connection of AIDs to homosexuality made by conservatives is fundamentlly sound. It also appears to me that "bisexual" men are the major carriers of AIDs from the homosexual community to females. As many homosexual men claim, a bisexual man is a homosexual man who has sex with women also. Since homosexual men seem to prefer anal sex over vaginal sex, it makes sense that they may prefer that mode with women also.
I am interested in research and statistics that differentiate the probablity of AIDs trasmission between heterosexual anal and vaginal sex. I am not interested in hearing a lot of bullshit propaganda that is devoid of scientifically verifiable information.
-
Let's get real.
America is not going to elect a black man (Obama) or a woman (Clinton) any time soon. So let's get the fuck off this every-four-years bandwagon where we trot out a woman or a black and fill wasted column inches over pretending we're somehow a colorblind, non-sexist nation that just happens to have elected all rich, white men to the top job as well as the position of second banana.
The Democratic Party might be (pick your adjective) enough to nominate a black or a woman. Yay. And then they'll get their asses soundly thumped. Again. Except this time the Republicans won't need to steal the election, because the solid majority of Americans are racist, sexist assholes who vote based on hatred, fear, and gas prices.
Before you chime in with your bullshit, "Maybe so for others, but not me" letters, STFU and look in the mirror. You know I'm right. It sucks, but it's true.
Now, would someone in the Democratic Party with real power please tell Barack and Hillary to get back to their offices and get some real work done, maybe build up an actual resume before they simply use their offices as stepping stones to disaster for the Democratic Party. Thank you.
-
Turn left
I don't think all Americans are racist, homophobic, and sexist.
However, they seem to be the majority of the people in this country who cast their vote.
When 500,000 people in each major city in America protested the inception of the Iraq war, their protest was too late.
The way you successfully protest is by voting.
Instead, the protestors most likely stayed home on Election Day and let the Evangelical Fundies vote George Bush and the neo-cons into office.
If the majority of the people in this country won't vote, then the Democrats have no choice but to try and influence those who do.
-
I'm both a Tim Grieve and AJ Calhoun fan
but, when Mr. Calhoun, whose letters I invariably find insightful, sophisticated and literate, states: "Did I mention I'm a fan? This Republican would vote for Obama for President in a heartbeat - and hopefully I'll have the chance" I feel I must demur a teensy bit. The election of an intelligent, competent and charismatic black man to the Presidency would give this white, lower-middle-class, erstwhile Republican, now recently Independent, voter great pleasure and satisfaction for it would empirically demonstrate that this country still is. . .at least politically. . .a land of equal opportunity, and it would further demonstrate a significant degree of enlightenment on the part of the American electorate.
However, with the appalling example of George W. Bush in mind, I am very queasy at the notion of elevating a relatively unseasoned individual to the Presidency. Mr. Farnsworth's point about the inevitably of Obama defining himself more narrowly and accumulating a Senate history that the spinmeisters can capitalize on is also well taken. While I am convinced that Obama has a bright future and would make a good Chief Executive, I would suggest that he needs several more years of tempering and refinement in the Senate.
Location, location, location rules in real estate; timing, timing, timing is paramount in politics.
-
Ah, Mr. Simms...but
How much more "unseasoned" an individual than George W. can one find? Prior to assuming the nation's highest office, he had never been outside the country. That is unless you consider a journey beyond the Texas borders to be outside the country. Yet the U.S. electorate elevated him to the presidency. TWICE!! Regardless of the questionable poll outcomes in Florida and Ohio. The recent though far from resounding thumping the Bushies took in the mid-terms is telling. You are still dealing with a nation divided, for whatever reasons.
I submit that Mr. Obama's chances for the Presidency (yes, if he were to be in office, I'd capitalize the word) are far better than you might give him or the electorate credit for. Simply based on his ability to think clearly and properly employ the use of the English language, he should by rights be able to assume the Office. I agree that timing is of paramount importance in politics. Would you agree that the nation is quickly running out of time?